Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, especially since I have sworn you [Cliff Varnell] off as not worth arguing with.

The same way you swore me off several times in the past as not being worthy of your attention?

Hypocrite.

Edited February 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Yeah, especially since I have sworn you off as not worth arguing with, and you know that.

I know that you have nothing to argue with, Jim, at least with me.

I also know you are an intellectual bully who, in a debate about the most efficient case for conspiracy, has had his ass handed to him on more than one occasion.

Milicent Cranor cites the prima facie case. Jim, maybe you should read all of her essay -- "Trajectory of a Lie" -- to see how a real researcher demolishes the SBT.

You've had hundreds of posts to make your points with David Von Pein and you are so frustrated with the results you lose your temper and plea for John Simkin to remove your tormentor.

On the other hand, I had two short discussions with David and he ended up stipulating to my key points and the discussion was quickly over.

LOL, people are on to your tricks Cliff.

So you're not the only paranoid narcissist in the CT scene? Who knew?

Maybe you don't know that, but many of us do.

You and Craig Lamson?. Nice company you keep, Jim.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Yeah, especially since I have sworn you off as not worth arguing with, and you know that.

I know that you have nothing to argue with, Jim, at least with me.

I also know you are an intellectual bully who, in a debate about the most efficient case for conspiracy, has had his ass handed to him on more than one occasion.

Milicent Cranor cites the prima facie case. Jim, maybe you should read all of her essay -- "Trajectory of a Lie" -- to see how a real researcher demolishes the SBT.

You've had hundreds of posts to make your points with David Von Pein and you are so frustrated with the results you lose your temper and plea for John Simkin to remove your tormentor.

On the other hand, I had two short discussions with David and he ended up stipulating to my key points and the discussion was quickly over.

LOL, people are on to your tricks Cliff.

So you're not the only paranoid narcissist in the CT scene? Who knew?

Maybe you don't know that, but many of us do.

You and Craig Lamson?. Nice company you keep, Jim.

Losing this argument has made you completely delusional cliffy. And now you are reduced to spewing gibberish.

Not all that hard to understand though. You spent DECADES spewing your nonsense and falsehoods and you finally got destroyed by the simple rays of the sun.

That really left a mark. You should spend more time outside in the sun. ROFLMAO!

Thanks so much for the grins.

LOL!

[Cliff Varnell]

1. To show what a paper tiger your were

Yeah, I had this attitude toward Craig. I thought people would readily see through his bluster but actually it doesn't register that way. It's indulging the false equivalency -- that there are two sides to the issue.

The fact of conspiracy precludes fact-based rebuttal. Von Pein admits he has no rebuttal.

It's a big mistake to go back and forth with these guys unless you have something that makes them agree with you (as David has stipulated) or makes their heads explode into cascades of insults, non-sequiturs and shameless whoppers.

And even then, it gets old in a hurry.

All we're producing with these guys, Jim -- you and I -- is Assassination Porn.

We're Assassination Porn addicts, the both of us. After a certain point there is no redeeming value to our back and forth arguments with these LNers.

However, I am in recovery. I've responded only to one percent of Lamson's posts over the last year or so -- as soon as he admitted that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of the neck. I had wrung one concession to reality out of the guy in 5 years and I cut way back on my responses to him.

Now I'm down to nothing. Thank you John Simkin for the "ignore" function!

Jim, going forward, maybe we should form Assassination Porn Anonymous and refuse to respond to these guys at all...except to remind David Von Pein his stipulations to the clothing evidence, of course.

After all, with that you have NO back and forth.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

1. To show what a paper tiger your were

Yeah, I had this attitude toward Craig. I thought people would readily see through his bluster but actually it doesn't register that way. It's indulging the false equivalency -- that there are two sides to the issue.

The fact of conspiracy precludes fact-based rebuttal. Von Pein admits he has no rebuttal.

It's a big mistake to go back and forth with these guys unless you have something that makes them agree with you (as David has stipulated) or makes their heads explode into cascades of insults, non-sequiturs and shameless whoppers.

And even then, it gets old in a hurry.

All we're producing with these guys, Jim -- you and I -- is Assassination Porn.

We're Assassination Porn addicts, the both of us. After a certain point there is no redeeming value to our back and forth arguments with these LNers.

However, I am in recovery. I've responded only to one percent of Lamson's posts over the last year or so -- as soon as he admitted that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of the neck. I had wrung one concession to reality out of the guy in 5 years and I cut way back on my responses to him.

Now I'm down to nothing. Thank you John Simkin for the "ignore" function!

Jim, going forward, maybe we should form Assassination Porn Anonymous and refuse to respond to these guys at all...except to remind David Von Pein his stipulations to the clothing evidence, of course.

The gibberish from varnell continues, along with the 'overselling'. You are infamous cliffy! ROFLMAO!

You are so much fun to watch when you are in full and total meltdown.

[David Von Pein]

That's are [sic] really dumb move on your part Davey, but no one ever praised you for your intelligence.

And nobody is ever going to praise you for your ability to write Internet posts which are free of fat-finger (and other) mistakes in nearly every one of them.

Because without me, you are a big zero.

Yeah, that must be why I get e-mails on a regular basis from people who say they enjoy my Internet posts and websites (even the stuff that doesn't involve the great James DiEugenio).

You really do require a huge hat for that big head of yours, don't you Jimbo? (I think that last quote above from you proves it.)

The reasons I ever took you on were:

1. To show what a paper tiger your [sic] were

Only a person who desperately WANTS Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent (as you evidently do, Jim) could possibly examine the body of evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases and conclude (as you do) that Oswald never fired a shot at EITHER President Kennedy or Officer Tippit on 11/22/63.

I am constantly presenting evidence that shows Oswald to be a double murderer. You are constantly sidestepping or distorting that evidence in an effort to exonerate that double killer.

And yet I am a "paper tiger" when it comes to a JFK assassination discussion? Once more, we're treated to a glimpse into the topsy-turvy universe of a conspiracy theorist from California named James DiEugenio.

~growl~

2. To make your name known as a fungus to be avoided everywhere

And so you engage me in Internet debates for almost three solid years to prove that someone like me should be "avoided everywhere", is that right Jimbo?

Hypocrisy at its finest. I love it!

Do you suppose Jimbo ever even bothers to think at all before typing some of the things he types into his (fat-finger) keyboard? I wonder.

3. Because I developed a lurker following by pounding you so badly, especially on your idolatry of your icon VB. Many, many people really enjoyed that.

And many people have also enjoyed the way I trashed your two-part 2010 CTKA article about me (see Parts 1-5 of the series linked below).

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

But if that's they [sic] way you want it, fine. Bye bye.

But if I am in Indy, how about a free chicken dinner?

DVP SAID:

Free?? Are you crazy?! I'm charging you double.

Besides, wouldn't you be afraid I'd poison it?

Or could it be that even you, Jim, a person who isn't shy in the least about calling all kinds of innocent people liars, conspirators, cover-up operatives, shills, and accomplices in the assassination of an American President, aren't willing to think of me ("Disinformation Dave", as it says on your website) as a murderer who would want to poison the food of someone like you?

I'm flattered.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

On second thought, forget it. You would probably take a photo and put it on your site.

DVP SAID:

Good idea. I could then write this caption under the picture of you:

"James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California -- the JFK assassination researcher who is delusional enough to think that all 22 of these things are true."

That should provide an ample number of laughs for my website visitors.

Thanks, Jimmy.

Edited February 10, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

Playing fun little games, eh Daniel? How nice.

You must be feeling neglected son... or perhaps this thread is moving a little fast for ya?

Edited March 6, 2013 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

...

The gibberish from varnell continues, along with the 'overselling'. You are infamous cliffy! ROFLMAO!

You are so much fun to watch when you are in full and total meltdown.

Focus on the thread topic, son. Lest of course, you're finally, at a loss for words.

Edited March 6, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lee Farley loves to make sweeping denunciations that he cannot sustain. I have published multiple proofs that the Zapruder film has been fabricated (using real footage, extensively revised), while painting over the blow-out at the back of the head and adding the "blob" and the blood spray. We have more than 60 witnesses who report the limo having been brought to a halt, and a half-dozen students of JFK have seen "the other film". I have built on John Costella's brilliant compilation of witness testimony to add arguments based upon Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney and Marrion Baker, which substantiate that Cheney rode forward to notify Chief Curry that JFK had been hit during the limo stop. And Clint Hill's consistent testimony of his actions at that time--rushing forward, climbing on the limousine, pushing Jackie back down in the seat, lying across their bodies (which was confirmed by Roy Kellerman), peering down into a fist-size hole in the back of JFK's head and giving a "thumb's down" to his colleagues--confirm it. But Lee Farley doesn't believe it and therefore trashed me on that basis.

Anyone can find the studies that substantiate my position on the fabrication of the film in articles published on Veterans Today. But I am too aggressive and unyielding in dealing with phonies and frauds, which has made me VERY UNPOPULAR AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM. No doubt, I will be featured just as David Lifton will be featured as we approach the 50th. Some who certainly deserve the exposure included Doug Horne and John P. Costella. But they too have generated hostility for their research on various aspects of the assassination, including the fabrication of the Zapruder film, where we know when and by whom the film was altered (which occurred at Hawkeye Works, a secret CIA lab at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester). The original was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, a 8mm already split film that had been developed in Dallas; while the substitute, a 16mm unsplit film developed in Rochester, was brought there on Sunday. For discovering that the Zapruder film was massively revised--and, worse yet, HAVING PROVED IT--many of us have been banished to the JFK community's equivalent of Siberia.

There is one man who has retained the admiration and respect of all parties He is the most highly qualified member of the JFK research effort and has made major contributions to the study of the medical evidence (including proof of two shots to the head and the discovery that the official autopsy X-rays have been altered). He published the most brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with exhibiting the stunning range of indications that the home movies were altered or faked and a completely devastating indictment of "The Silence of the Historians". He is someone whom I admire beyond words and is the only person in the JFK community of whom I have never heard a harsh word. He would make the best possible spokesman for the current state of JFK research. I therefore recommend him for your consideration with enthusiasm. The person I have in mind, of course, is David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. He is the right person to be advanced in that position, where all of us know that anyone who adopts a hostile stance toward him now must have some obscure axe to grind. He is "the man" for the 50th!

I mentioned on another thread that the first reply to the Dallas Morning News blog Jim D linked to recently was placed there by Jim Fetzer. I'm informed that Judyth Baker Vary has now also entered the mix and that her story is being supported by Jesse Ventura. Her story by the way having more and more absurdities added to it including exciting new revelations about Oswald's shirt (yawn).

Every news item I seem to come across that bears any sort of relationship to the assassination of JFK quickly has Fetzer crawling all over it linking to his Veteran's Today articles. I can't help but suspect that there is a campaign at work and it is made up of several levels.

I long ago came to the conclusion that James Fetzer was purposely trying to undermine all of the hard work that has been completed by very tireless and dedicated researchers over the past four decades. Similar to the way in which he has systematically helped destroy the reputation and credibility of the nine-eleven truth movement.

It will be Fetzer who will be appearing on CNN and FOX News come the anniversary and he will be accompanied by the poisoned chimp, Ralph Cinque. I'm surprised by Jesse Ventura giving creedence to Baker's story and the whole thing seems to be getting completely out of hand.

I don't really hold out much hope that the more sensible voices, such as Jim DiEugenio's, will be heard in November, and even though RFK Jr. has come out with his claims, I don't see it having the impact we need.

Do I sound pessimistic?

Lee

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Edited March 6, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Sorry, Jim, your friend Mantik has real trouble interpreting x-rays, or admitting he was wrong, or BOTH.

[Martin White]

Pat,

I've never met either you or David Mantik. I'm impressed with how much knowledge you have gained simply by immersing yourself in the literature, but you remain a layman (medically) and I nearly spat my coffee out when I read you saying that a board-certified oncologist had trouble interpreting x-rays. As I said, I admire your work ethic and study, but this is a step too far.

Secondly, I have never read anything written about David Mantik that suggests he has trouble admitting he was wrong. On the contrary, I have only ever read positive comments about him, and his own writing is usually bent-over-backwards to be fair or to allow for or even acknowledge his own mistakes.

I make these remarks with the best of respect to both you and Dr Mantik and I hope that they are received in the same way.

Best regards

Martin

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I've never met either you or David Mantik. I'm impressed with how much knowledge you have gained simply by immersing yourself in the literature, but you remain a layman (medically) and I nearly spat my coffee out when I read you saying that a board-certified oncologist had trouble interpreting x-rays. As I said, I admire your work ethic and study, but this is a step too far.

Secondly, I have never read anything written about David Mantik that suggests he has trouble admitting he was wrong. On the contrary, I have only ever read positive comments about him, and his own writing is usually bent-over-backwards to be fair or to allow for or even acknowledge his own mistakes.

I make these remarks with the best of respect to both you and Dr Mantik and I hope that they are received in the same way.

Best regards

Martin

I, too, deferred to Mantik's expertise when I started out. But have since come to conclude he's wrong, wrong, wrong, about an awful lot. That is why I created the slide posted above. It shows how one of Mantik's main mistakes has nothing to do with his technical abilities or expertise, but his basic abilities, in particular, his ability to admit a mistake. Most anyone--I bet even my 3 year-old--can see that the lead smudge was by the temple in Angel's orientation. Having a lead smudge by the temple is HUGE--one of the biggest break-throughs regarding the medical evidence in decades, IMO. And yet, Mantik won't admit his mistake, and lets people like you think that by refusing to do so, he's standing by his story.

And that therefore there was no lead smudge by the temple--and evidence, perhaps even proof, that Kennedy was struck by the temple.

He's kind of like a Senator, using the filibuster to hold back the nomination of an important position, because like the Fonz on Happy Days, he just can't say he's WORNG.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

David Mantik is a close friend. He and I spent some time with another friend, Noel Twyman, a few months ago. During lunch, David had to chuckle when

I mentioned the "Moorman in the Street" issue. He had no trouble at all admitting that John Costella, PhD had demonstrated that he (Mantik) had been

mistaken about her location and that Moorman was probably on the grass at the time she took her photo. He didn't hesitate, wince, wiggle or squirm

about it. He is human. Humans make mistakes. All humans make mistakes.

In this instance, regarding David Mantik, it appears that Pat Speer has demonstrated that he too is human. Hopefully, he can say he's WORNG (sic).

[Randy Gunter]

I think its more fair to say that the medical evidence in this case is an abomination.

I don't recall any other murder case that has this many anomalies in the medical record.

And because of that there are many ways one can approach that evidence.

On one hand, you can use the WC's viewpoint, on the other extreme you can do the Horne-Lifton view.

And the thing is, you can mount a case from the record on both.

That is what is so bizarre about this case.

I think a lot of Mantik's work on the medical angle is really good, well founded and fascinating. I mean the guy has been to the Archives like nine times. So he knows the original evidence well.

My objection to Mantik as a spokesman at the 50th is that IMO this stuff is so complex and his explication so dense that you cannot sum it up in 3 or 4 or 5 sentences. I mean that is just the beginning. I mean I have to read his stuff twice most of the time, and I ma not a layman.

On TV or in the media you don't get that much time to explain yourself. Unless its NPR.

Jim,

Cyril Wecht said "A skid-row bum gets a better autopsy than JFK got". That would explain more medical miscues than a drunk and drugged MASH unit.

Randy